1 Thursday, 16 February 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The Accused Stanisic not present]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
8 This is the case IT-03-69-T, The Prosecutor versus
9 Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 As everyone will see, Judge Picard is not present at this moment.
12 She is unable to continue sitting for urgent personal reasons. And
13 Judge Gwaunza and myself are satisfied that it's in the interests of
14 justice to continue hearing this case. I add to this, that the absence
15 of Judge Picard is likely to be of a short duration.
16 So, therefore, we have -- we hereby order that the hearing of the
17 case continue in the absence of Judge Picard.
18 Apart from that, I established that Mr. Stanisic is not present
19 in court. We are waiting for a filled-in waiver form, but since we
20 discussed his absence already yesterday, we could continue even when that
21 form has not yet arrived.
22 Mr. Jordash, I take it that the waiver of his right to be
23 present, which was expressed yesterday, is unchanged.
24 MR. JORDASH: Correct, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
1 Then is the witness available to be brought into the courtroom?
2 Mr. Groome, you'll have a -- later today an opportunity to
3 address the matter you wished to address.
4 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour, yesterday you said a session or perhaps
6 even less than a session. That's still your estimate?
7 MS. HARBOUR: Yes, Your Honour.
8 [The witness takes the stand]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Selak. Please be seated.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Selak, as I did yesterday, I again remind you
12 that you're still bound by the solemn declaration that you've given at
13 the beginning of your testimony.
14 WITNESS: OSMAN SELAK [Resumed]
15 [Witness answered through interpreter]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour, are you ready to continue your
18 MS. HARBOUR: Yes, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
20 Cross-examination by Ms. Harbour: [Continued]
21 Q. Mr. Selak, yesterday it became clear that you're very familiar
22 with the proceedings before this Tribunal and you reviewed many of the
23 documents that have been used in various proceedings.
24 I'd ask that in response to my questions today, if you could
25 please limit your answers to what you know from your own personal
1 experience and observations at the time that we're discussing rather than
2 referring to information that you learned subsequently from various
3 documents. And if you do find it absolutely necessary to refer to those
4 documents to fully respond to a question, could you please clearly
5 indicate that your answer relates to information gleaned from documents
6 rather than your personal knowledge at the time?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. You've testified about your involvement as logistics commander
9 and supplying, weapons, ammunition and other equipment to JNA and TO
10 units in Croatia. Was any paperwork required in order to move across
11 borders from one republic to another in 1991 and 1992?
12 A. No paperwork was needed, except for official military documents
13 accompanying consignments of military equipment, indicating to which unit
14 and how much.
15 Q. Were there any passes that needed to be issued to the convoys
16 before they could cross the borders, or anything to that effect?
17 A. I don't know about any passes because where military equipment
18 was delivered, where military units were located, there were authorities
19 of Yugoslavia in power; later Republika Srpska. So I don't know of any
20 passes. There was just military documentation indicating what is
21 carried, to whom, and how much.
22 I never had any special laissez-passer.
23 Q. In your comments chart, which is now in evidence as D730, you
24 commented on three documents from April 1992 that reflected the SSNO
25 ordering the ammunition -- the issuing of ammunition to the Serbian
1 Krajina MUP via the 2nd Military District.
2 You commented that:
3 "It was quite normal for police to request from the army this
4 kind of supplies."
5 And my question for you is: Do you know anything about the
6 Serbian MUP's involvement in issuing ammunition to the Serbian Krajina
8 A. I have no specific information about that. There was information
9 about deliveries of police equipment, not military equipment, but that
10 didn't go through the logistics base in Banja Luka, so I have no specific
11 information what was delivered and at what time because that would be in
12 the documentation of the MUP of the Republic of Serbia. It would be been
13 the Serbian MUP and the Republika Srpska MUP.
14 I didn't have any documents.
15 Q. You have provided evidence in your Milosevic testimony at
16 transcript page 22328 and 22344 through -46, that the JNA was involved in
17 arming the Serb TO in Western Slavonia and that the JNA and TO were
18 involved in various combat operations in that area of Croatia in Pakrac,
19 in Lipik, in 1991.
20 Do you know what the Serbian DB's role in Western Slavonia was
21 during that time?
22 A. Serbian state security made efforts to organise authorities and
23 the system of government in that area in Republika Srpska, so it was
24 quite logical for the police to do their job. The army did not interfere
25 with that, and it operated in the only way possible at the time. It was
1 between municipalities and the MUPs of municipalities and their police
2 forces where the army had to get involved with deliveries of equipment,
3 materiel, and perhaps ammunition. That was done quite legally, and it
4 went on quite normally.
5 Q. When I refer to the Serbian DB, I refer to the
6 State Security Service of the Republic of Serbia. Is that also how you
7 interpreted my question and how we should interpret your response?
8 A. I did not have any contacts or any precise information about the
9 contacts of the MUP of the Republic of Serbia with the MUP of
10 Republika Srpska. I did not have access to that sort of information.
11 All that I know is from my contacts with the security organs in
12 Banja Luka, so I wouldn't be able to tell you anything about that. There
13 were contacts, but what was the -- the issue, they -- they dealt with
14 between them, and in what way, I wouldn't know.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour, the first question you put to the
16 witness, you said:
17 "You've testified about your involvement as logistics commander
18 in supplying weapons, ammunition, and other equipment to JNA and TO units
19 in Croatia."
20 Now if my recollection is well, yesterday the main issue and,
21 therefore, I wanted to make sure there was no confusion, the main
22 transport of weapons was those pulled out from Slovenia and Croatia to
23 Bosnia; and, then, later, the transport through the corridor from Serbia
24 to, well, let's say the Banja Luka area.
25 I just want to make sure that the witness understood exactly what
1 you meant by the supply of weapons, ammunition, and other equipment to
2 JNA and TO units in Croatia, because most of what was said yesterday, as
3 far as I remember, was about the movement of supplies, as I just
5 Could you please verify with the witness, and perhaps give us the
6 exact sources and perhaps make sure that -- perhaps by quoting the exact
7 lines what you were referring to.
8 MS. HARBOUR:
9 Q. The source that I'm referring to, Mr. Selak, is not your
10 testimony from yesterday which largely focussed on what the Chamber has
11 just mentioned. But, rather, I'd like to focus you on the JNA operations
12 in Western Slavonia --
13 A. I understand.
14 Q. -- particularly in the latter portion of 1991. Do you know what
15 the Serbian DB's role, the State Security Service of the Republic of
16 Serbia, what their role was in that part of Croatia, in Western Slavonia,
17 at that time?
18 A. Sorry, I didn't answer the first question about that
19 Territorial Defence unit in Slavonia and logistics base.
20 The base did deliver ammunition and weapons to units of
21 Territorial Defence in Slavonia. I have no knowledge about what the
22 state security of Serbia did in the territory of Slavonia. They were
23 involved around Vukovar. But Pakrac and Lipik, I was present there when
24 the fighting went on. There was a rocket brigade from Banja Luka, one
25 artillery battalion that targeted Pakrac and Lipik; I know that.
1 But about the State Security of Serbia, its role and its
2 activities in Slavonia, I really don't know, and I couldn't have stated
3 that in the Milosevic case because I certainly did not have that kind of
5 JUDGE ORIE: And when you answered the question about the
6 paperwork that was needed, were you referring to the paperwork needed in
7 order to get this equipment into Slavonia; or did you -- were talking
8 about other -- other supplies of weapons?
9 You said no paperwork, just official military documents, where it
10 should be sent, et cetera. Were you then specifically talking about
11 shipments to Slavonia?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, that
13 documentation was purely military documentation.
14 Police organs in that territory and those were military vehicles
15 with military markings and military escort, did not interfere with that,
16 nor dared to interfere because the army was, of course, stronger. But
17 the civilian authorities functioned normally, so the military transport
18 went without any problem to Slavonia and even the Serbian Krajina; Knin,
19 which, for instance was not in Slavonia. Those were the deliveries.
20 The only problem was their requests were enormous, and I didn't
21 allow for it, because then the weapons would be distributed house to
22 house, and I tried -- I was trying to stop that, to prevent that.
23 There were no other passes, no.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
25 MS. HARBOUR: Could we please now turn to Exhibit P2452. And I
1 note that this document does not need to be under seal, as we indicated
2 in our 2nd of February, 2012, submission.
3 Q. This is signed by Jovica Stanisic to the minister of defence of
4 Serbia personally on the 9th of December, 1991.
5 Mr. Selak, was the minister of defence of Serbia Tomislav Simovic
6 at the time?
7 A. I can't remember. I can't remember which date it was exactly, so
8 I -- I don't know. I don't know when that was.
9 Q. In this document, Stanisic reports information that he received
10 from the TO and police of Western Slavonia. He informs the minister of
11 defence that:
12 "The JNA reservists are leaving positions en masse and
13 withdrawing towards Bijela Stijena and Okucani. The brigade command does
14 not control the situation."
15 And then Stanisic concludes by stating:
16 "Unless adequate support is provided, there's a danger that the
17 soldiers and inhabitants will leave the territory of Western Slavonia."
18 Mr. Selak, do you know if, after this date, the minister of
19 defence made arrangements to supply weapons or any other support to the
20 TO in Western Slavonia?
21 A. Your Honours, the Ministry of the Interior had no need to send
22 weapons to Western Slavonia because there was so many weapons there.
23 People who abandoned their positions, such as deserters, could not carry
24 their weapons with them. Those weapons would remain behind. And after
25 this date, complete units withdrew from Slavonia. The JNA was pulling
1 out from Pakrac and Lipik.
2 Your Honours, allow me to expand on this case because I attended
3 the meeting in General Uzelac's office when he got a call from Belgrade
4 and orders to stop combat in Western Slavonia immediately. That's the
5 area from Pakrac and Lipik towards the Hungarian border. When the phone
6 call ended Uzelac said, I meant to go as far as the Hungarian border but
7 now I can't. And then the pull-out followed. I don't know the exact
8 date, but the JNA pulled out, and the Croatian forces were stronger and
9 stronger all the time. So the army just left the corridor open towards
10 Brcko and towards Serbia, and that corridor was opened all through the
12 That's all.
13 MS. HARBOUR: I'm going to ask Mr. Laugel to play an excerpt of
14 an intercepted conversation between Mr. Jovica Stanisic and
15 Radovan Karadzic on the 14th of December, 1991. This is in evidence as
17 And Your Honour, I note that the English translation is dated the
18 4th of December, 1991, whereas the original has the date of 14 December,
19 so I will submit this translation for correction.
20 The intercept is under seal because the transcript bears the
21 signature of an operative but there is no reason that the intercept
22 itself cannot be played publicly. This intercept is about three and a
23 half minutes long. And I --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour, I didn't understand the previous answer
25 to be a real answer to your question. I don't know whether you consider
1 that your question has been answered, the previous one, or that you're
2 not interested to hear the answer.
3 The question was whether the witness knows whether any
4 arrangements were made. He explained that there was no need to send
5 weapons, et cetera, but that is all opinion rather than ...
6 MS. HARBOUR: Let me just clarify with the witness.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.
8 MS. HARBOUR:
9 Q. Mr. Selak, I took your previous response to mean that, no, you
10 did not know that any arrangements were made for supply of weapons or
11 other support by the minister of defence to the Western Slavonia region?
12 Was that a correct understanding?
13 A. You're right, I didn't know that.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's -- at least an answer. He doesn't know,
15 neither in the positive nor in the negative sense.
16 Please proceed.
17 MS. HARBOUR: I would like to ask Mr. Laugel now to play this
18 intercept from the 14th of December, 1991, which is P673. And since we
19 were not able to sync the subtitles to the intercept, I have hard copies
20 of the translation if the Chamber or either of the parties are
22 JUDGE ORIE: First of all, have you provided the transcripts to
23 the booth.
24 MS. HARBOUR: Yes, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: That's most important. Then I think we can proceed.
1 [Intercept played]
2 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "Here's what it is about, the news
3 is pretty controversial from other there in Slavonia.
4 "From Banja Luka.
5 "From Banja Luka. 5.000 new people have arrived in Banja Luka,
6 10.000 arrive tomorrow. I don't know why they are leaving, those, those
7 villages. Colonel Talic tells me that all of Seselj's men put up a
8 fantastic fight. Before they started sowing defeatism and saying that
9 Serbia had betrayed them, why should they wait there, it would be lost
10 anyway so they killed the fucking lot.
11 "No doctor, don't, don't.
12 "Fall for ... no, no, first they blame 50 of Seselj's men, or 100
13 Seselj's Men.
14 "Yes, yes.
15 "We have to be an organised state to save this fucking people.
16 "Yes, yes. I am, sort of ....
17 "For them, everyone is to blame, fuck them.
19 "When things are bad, the only ones to blame are Seselj's Men
20 and ...
21 "Yes. He says that, he says that they are listening to them and
22 they are in disarray, that they are short of 1.000 to 2.000 men to
23 completely crush them, they, he says, we are listening to them, they, we
24 know for a fact that they are in disarray. They are no good, he say.
25 And we need ... and I told them so, is to set up a brigade there, which
1 is waiting in Bosanski Petrovac, people at home are ready to go, 700, I
2 can raise them in two hours.
3 "Doctor ...
4 "I can raise them.
5 "Doctor, my information over the last three days says that the
6 army is not in control of the situation.
7 "In Western Slavonia.
8 "Yes, yes, they are not in control of the situation.
9 "Yes. Well, who is fighting over there? What is going on?
10 "The army ... but the Territorial Defence is in disarray.
12 "They are on the offensive and I think that my information is
14 "Yes, yes.
15 "And that this has been going on for four to five days already.
16 "And what can be done about it?
17 "Well, I told you when you were in Belgrade that I had raised as
18 many as I could and warned their prime minister and the others of the
21 "There has to be a military reaction. There has to be a military
23 "But Talic ... Colonel Talic tells me, we only need a few men to
24 crush them completely because they're falling apart. He says that the
25 Territorial Defence is poor, it's in disarray, but ... he says that the
1 army has not withdrawn a single metre anywhere, by a single metre
2 anywhere, on the territory that the army controls.
3 "What they did hold ... where they had got to, Pakrac, the day
4 before yesterday.
6 "You understand.
7 "Yes, yes.
8 "This means that they didn't have a front to speak of up there.
9 "They got as far as Pakrac. Up there our villages, man, they are
10 villages there, from Podravska Slatina, from Bocina Gora. Everybody has
11 moved out from Mount Bilogora, there is no one to protect them from that
12 side, man, there were territorials there, there's no army there, that's
13 the problem.
14 "You see.
15 "Yes, yes.
16 "This means, that ... they didn't have a front up there.
17 "Fucking hell. What are we do to? I really don't know what to
18 do here.
19 "What is to be done ...
20 "Mr. Uzelac is out in the field there. I don't know whereabouts.
21 I can't get a hold of him.
22 "No matter, here, I will ring Belgrade now. I'll call as many
23 people as I can, I mean, but ... it will be a real exodus, man.
24 "Well, yes, I mean, but no Slavonia must be held ...
25 "Are you informed about what they're doing to you here in
1 Banja Luka?
2 "To be honest, I didn't want to go, or to know. If Babic shits
3 there, I'll tell him to go fuck himself. They will probably try to do
4 something stupid, and this Andjelko.
5 "I barely convinced Hadzic not to go there.
7 "Goran Hadzic.
9 "Goran, Goran.
12 "Ah, right."
13 MS. HARBOUR:
14 Q. Mr. Selak, this -- what you've just heard is an intercept of a
15 conversation between Jovica Stanisic and Radovan Karadzic. And, as I
16 said, this is on the 14th of December, 1991.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. In it conversation, Stanisic has told Karadzic about the issue in
19 Western Slavonia. Would you agree that Stanisic appears to be
20 well-informed about the JNA and TO operations in Western Slavonia from
21 this discussion?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Stanisic indicates that prior to this discussion he had warned
24 "their prime minister and the others of the situation."
25 Does this demonstrate his connections with the Serb leadership in
2 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, I object to that question. It's --
3 it's -- it's --
4 JUDGE ORIE: You're asking the witness to draw conclusions from a
5 text he has heard and seen.
6 Now, you can ask the witness whether he has any personal
7 knowledge about the relationship between -- but to say whether this
8 demonstrates or not is finally a conclusion to be drawn by the Bench.
9 Unless the witness has some specific knowledge about it, then you can ask
10 him for that. But don't ask him to interpret the conversation as such.
11 Your first question was the same, I let it go, but then
12 Mr. Jordash rightly objected to the second question. And I take it that
13 you did that after you had considered to do the same for the first
15 MR. JORDASH: Precisely.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 Ms. Harbour. So if the witness knows anything about how and --
18 Mr. Stanisic, what kind of knowledge he had about the situation in the --
19 in Western Slavonia or how he had obtained that knowledge, fine. But to
20 ask whether this document shows it, that's really not for a witness to
22 Please proceed.
23 MS. HARBOUR:
24 Q. Mr. Selak, as we've discussed, Stanisic has indicated - in this
25 discussion at least - that he had warned the prime minister, their prime
1 minister. Do you have any personal knowledge about any relationship
2 Mr. Stanisic may have had about -- with Serb leadership in Croatia?
3 A. All the mass media in Banja Luka reported on the developments in
4 Croatia, specifically in the Serbian Krajina, in Croatia, and the Bosnian
5 Krajina. We knew on this basis and I knew from military sources that
6 these military and political communications were always ongoing with
7 Banja Luka, Belgrade, and the Krajina. And I stand by what I say,
8 Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's not about your knowledge. It is about
10 whether you know anything about how Mr. Stanisic gained knowledge of what
11 happened over there, and whether you have any personal knowledge of
12 Mr. Stanisic's communication with the Belgrade leaders.
13 Do you know anything about that?
14 A. I don't have any knowledge about that. Not personal knowledge.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Harbour.
16 MS. HARBOUR:
17 Q. Just to clarify, and you also don't have personal knowledge of
18 Mr. Stanisic's communications with leadership in Croatia, in the Serbian
20 A. I do not.
21 Q. In this discussion, Karadzic refers to Talic and Uzelac as being
22 involved in this operation. You knew that the 5th Corps of the JNA was
23 involved in this action.
24 At this point in 1991, what was Dr. Karadzic's authority or
25 relationship over the 5th Corps?
1 A. At that point in time, Karadzic had no powers whatsoever over the
2 5th Corps, because it was the 5th Corps of the Yugoslav People's Army.
3 The Army of Republika Srpska was declared only on the
4 18th of June, 1992, so he had no authority over the JNA, their command
5 and control, or that of the TO.
6 Q. Stanisic states:
7 "I'll call as many people as I can."
8 Mr. Selak, do you know whether Stanisic had any authority or
9 resources to address the situation in Western Slavonia?
10 And please only answer to your own knowledge.
11 A. I don't know that Stanisic had any powers over the police and any
12 of their organs in Western Slavonia. This sort of information did not
13 reach military commands.
14 Q. So your testimony is that you don't know whether he did or not;
15 is that correct?
16 A. I don't know whether he did or not. I have no information to
17 that effect.
18 Q. The last question was about Mr. Stanisic's authority and
19 resources. And now I'd like to know whether you know if Stanisic sent
20 combatants to assist the JNA in the Western Slavonia operations.
21 A. I know that there were problems with Western Slavonia. Now, who
22 took part there alongside the army, I can't tell you. There was chaos,
23 people fled en masse to Banja Luka on tractors, whatever vehicles they
24 could spare. They were in disarray. What the course of the operation in
25 Western Slavonia was, I don't know, because I only provided logistics
1 support to the JNA units. I was not aware of the way in which the
2 civilian authority there was organised.
3 Q. Further on, at the very end of this conversation between Karadzic
4 and Stanisic, and I did not play the entire conversation for you so this
5 quote is actually not part of what you heard.
6 Mr. Stanisic said that he would:
7 "Call my lads who are in contact with the TO Staff up there in
8 Psunj [Realtime transcript read in error "Slunj"]."
9 Psunj is near Pakrac; is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Were you aware that the Serbian DB members maintained contact
12 with TO staff in Western Slavonia during the time that the 5th Corps was
13 engaged in operations there?
14 A. I don't have that sort of information. The 5th Corps security
15 organ did not inform me about me [as interpreted]. He was in
16 communication with TO units and civilian security organs. I don't know
17 anything about it, and I wouldn't want to go wrong.
18 I would tell you on a personal note that they did, but that's
19 just my personal view, and I have no information to back it with.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour, there seems to be some confusion about
21 the place you referred to. It's now on the transcript as "Slunj." But
22 it reads in the exhibit Psunj, P-s --
23 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, let's be -- yes, it may have been your
25 pronunciation. But what we find in this transcript of the telephone
1 conversation, right or wrong, that is also a matter which perhaps may
2 need some verification, is that Mr. Stanisic would have said:
3 "I called my lads who are in contact with the TO Staff up there
4 on," it says "on," not "in," "Psunj," P-s-u-n-j, which as I do understand
5 is a mountain in the south-west Slavonia region.
6 Did you understand the question to refer to Psunj or to Slunj?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My understanding was that it had to
8 do with Psunj. I saw it in the transcript and that's how I understood
9 it. Maybe I misheard it.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Well, as a matter of fact, in the transcript, on our
11 transcript of today, it's Slunj, and your pronunciation might have caused
12 a bit of a problem. But it's clear now that we're talking about Psunj
13 and nothing else.
14 Please proceed.
15 MS. HARBOUR:
16 Q. Mr. Selak, yesterday, we reviewed some maps outlining your area
17 of responsibility. And I just want to confirm with you that as commander
18 of the 993rd Logistics Base, this area that we've been discussing in
19 Pakrac and Psunj, in this area of Western Slavonia, was within your area
20 of responsibility, was it not?
21 A. Yes, yes.
22 Q. Now I would like to ask Mr. Laugel to play another intercept for
23 you. And this is P676 and records another conversation between Karadzic
24 and Jovica Stanisic, and that's on the 20th of December, 1991.
25 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
1 MS. HARBOUR:
2 Q. For your information, it's the Prosecution's case that the person
3 addressed as Joco in this intercept is Mr. Jovica Stanisic.
4 Since it is difficult to follow who is speaking without the
5 transcripts, would it be assist if we distributed the hard copies of the
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that might assist. Of course all the parties
8 in this courtroom can have it on their own screens. I mean, they can
9 call for themselves P676 and have the transcript on the screen, so it
10 would save some paper. But for those who have no direct access to
11 e-court, there, it might assist.
12 MS. HARBOUR: I don't have a B/C/S transcript handy, so ...
13 there's nothing to distribute to the witness, unfortunately.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And to the accused, apparently.
15 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
16 JUDGE ORIE: We'll show it on the screen, although it will not
17 help the witness very much if it is in English, unless the witness
18 sufficiently understands the English language. Let me just ...
19 And then you say you don't have a B/C/S transcript, which
20 surprises me, because it is in e-court. So we can use it on the screen.
21 So it is available. But it should be shown on the screen then, and then
22 the ...
23 The usher will assist.
24 [Video-clip played]
25 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "Joco, hello" --
1 MS. HARBOUR: Sorry, before we play it, I would just like to ask
2 the interpreters pay particular attention to -- when interpreting the
3 line that in the translation says the civilian, in parenthesis, as our
4 language staff have had different views of how this is interpreted.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, you're asking our interpreters to verify
6 the accuracy of a document which is in evidence, and there's an English
7 version of that. So that is not usually done. But at least the Chamber
8 is aware that there may be an issue there. If that needs verification it
9 has to be sent to CLSS again to verify the accuracy of the translation in
10 that respect.
11 MS. HARBOUR: Yes, Your Honour. I only know because we noticed
12 this this morning, so just for the record today.
13 JUDGE ORIE: That doesn't change the way in which it should be
14 concluded. But we are now alerted to a possible issue about this part.
15 And where exactly do we start?
16 Please proceed.
17 [Intercept played]
18 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "R: Joco, hello.
19 "J: Hello.
20 "R: That's better.
21 "J: How are you doctor?
22 "R: Well, we're working. We're in a council meeting so I popped
23 out to call you.
24 "J: I'd like to ask you to tell you one thing which is that the
25 situation around Okucani is critical tonight.
1 "R: Critical is it?
2 "J: Yes.
3 "R: So they can take Okucani, or what?
4 "J: Yes.
5 "R: I have to call Slobo, right?
6 "J: Well, I can do it. But I don't want to disturb him there
7 right now.
8 "R: Just feel free to call him.
9 "J: What?
10 "R: Feel free to call him. No, he has to know about this. He
11 has to know about this. They mustn't be allowed to take hold of
12 territory during a truce. Just call him up.
13 "J: Good. Can't you do something for me here so that Krajina
14 puts a bit of pressure there on?
15 "R: No, no, can't be done because if --
16 "J: I mean to have the Banja Luka Corps.
17 "R: No, if this Uzelac isn't there and Uzelac isn't there.
18 "J: That's his deputy.
19 "R: I beg your pardon.
20 "J: He's got a deputy.
21 "R: He can't do it without an order. I talked to him. He's a
22 good man, but he can't do it without an order.
23 "J: Well, let them fire a few rounds at night. Damn it.
24 "R: He doesn't dare.
25 "J: Huh?
1 "R: He doesn't dare. I try to find him, but he won't dare to.
2 "J: Come on, doctor, just a little.
3 "R: I'll try but he won't dare to. Never mind, this should be
4 reported to Slobo. Aco has finished that over there today.
5 "J: Yes, yes, all right.
6 "R: All right. Bye."
7 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter's note: It was too inaudible.
8 We weren't able to hear what was said.
9 MS. HARBOUR:
10 Q. In this intercept discussion, Karadzic and Stanisic both refer to
11 someone named Slobo, and I would like to ask you if you know whether --
12 if you have any personal knowledge of whether Mr. Stanisic and
13 Mr. Karadzic were in communication with Slobodan Milosevic.
14 A. This is the first time I'm hearing this conversation, and I don't
15 have any information about that. I have -- I had no information as to
16 the sort of communication that they had.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any dispute about the parties that the
18 interlocutors, when talking about Slobo, would have referred to
19 Mr. Milosevic?
20 MR. JORDASH: No. And there's no dispute that Stanisic was, on
21 occasion, in touch with Milosevic either.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Apart from what seems to be almost obvious, I'm not
23 saying that Slobo is -- in the conversations is usually, of course,
24 always to be verified in the context, but is usually a reference to
25 Mr. Milosevic, I would say.
1 So, therefore, I think it would have been wiser to check with the
2 Prosecution -- with the Defence whether there's any dispute about this
3 reference here.
4 Please proceed.
5 MS. HARBOUR:
6 Q. Mr. Stanisic asks at some point in this conversation:
7 "Can't you do something here for me so that Krajina puts a bit of
8 pressure there."
9 And Mr. Karadzic responds that he will try.
10 Mr. Selak, do you know, from your personal knowledge, if
11 Mr. Stanisic had any ability to influence the combat instructions that
12 were received by the 5th Corps?
13 A. I, myself, had never heard that Stanisic had any sort of
14 influence over the 5th Corps in Banja Luka. I suppose he did communicate
15 with the corps command organs, but I don't have personal knowledge of it.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we don't have to -- what you suppose or
17 not is -- it is about your personal knowledge.
18 Please proceed.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is irrelevant.
20 MS. HARBOUR: If we could now turn to Exhibit P1307, to page 5 in
21 the English and page 6 in the B/C/S.
22 Q. Mr. Selak, this is a document that you looked at yesterday. And
23 could I ask you to focus here on the experiences listed, once the
24 document is displayed.
25 MS. HARBOUR: Could we have page 5 in the English, please, and
1 page 6 in the B/C/S.
2 Q. Here, under experiences listed, the second item down states:
3 "Some SDS leaders at all levels are seeking weapons from the JNA
4 and the MNO of Serbia through various channels, in a fight for
5 primacy ..."
6 Serbia's Ministry of National Defence had its own access to
7 weapons independent from the JNA; is that correct?
8 And if you don't know, please just say so.
9 A. The Serbian Ministry of Defence did not have weapons of its own.
10 Weapons were stored in TO depots and JNA depots because there was,
11 officially, the Yugoslav People's Army, and not the Army of the Republic
12 of Serbia, at least officially. I don't know what the case was
13 unofficially. Officially they were not supposed to have weapons.
14 Q. But if they had access to weapons unofficially, they would have
15 been able to supply weapons to groups without going through the JNA; is
16 that correct?
17 MR. JORDASH: Objection. It's an invitation to speculate. If --
18 if --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Let's just ask the --
20 MS. HARBOUR: I take your point.
21 JUDGE ORIE: -- witness whether he knows anything about -- but
22 not knowing whether they had weapons at all, what -- if they would have
23 had weapons how they would distribute them. That, of course, is, again,
24 a matter at least -- what we would like to know is whether the witness
25 could tell us anything about that in terms of facts rather than on --
1 in -- how that should have been. Yes?
2 Do you know anything about distribution of weapons which may have
3 come from the Ministry of National Defence of Serbia?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know anything about it.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
6 MS. HARBOUR: If we go down to the last line on this page in the
7 English and onto the next page, which is page 7 in the B/C/S, this line
9 "In light of the fact that many people from the SDS are
10 contacting the authorities and other structures in Serbia, it would be a
11 good idea for the SSNO to point such occurrences out to the leadership in
12 Serbia and to recommend to them to take more proactive steps to eliminate
13 deviant behaviour in this region."
14 Q. You've just heard an intercept of a conversation between Karadzic
15 and Stanisic on the 4th of December, 1991, in which Stanisic agreed to
16 supply men to assist in Western Slavonia?
17 Would you consider that an instance of what is discussed in this
18 document of a very prominent member of the SDS receiving assistance from
19 an authority in Serbia?
20 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, objection. If the witness --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Objection is sustained.
22 Again, you're asking opinion from the witness. Is this a
23 demonstration of that. Now we have this document. This document is --
24 clearly says something and we have another incident. Whether the one is
25 an expression of the other, you can ask the witness whether he has any
1 specific knowledge about that. But to say, Does this demonstrate what is
2 seen there, asks for opinion and judgement, rather than facts.
3 Please proceed.
4 The Chamber will have to consider this question, perhaps, but
5 it's not for the witness to -- unless the witness could tell us that his
6 neighbour told him once that, in view of this document, someone else had
7 expressed a certain -- that's facts. But you are just asking the witness
8 to link two events. And that is judgement, opinion, assessment, rather
9 than factual knowledge, unless the witness has any specific knowledge
10 about the link between the document and the behaviour of Mr. Stanisic, as
11 we have found it in the intercept.
12 You may proceed.
13 MS. HARBOUR:
14 Q. Mr. Selak, do you know of any instances that would exemplify what
15 is being discussed here of the SDS contacting the authorities and other
16 structures in Serbia?
17 If you don't have any personal knowledge of these instances,
18 please just let us know.
19 A. Your Honours, I have this document. I have a whole batch of
20 documents in my bag here. I have analysed it, but I have no direct
21 knowledge about such communications, so I'm not really qualified to
23 Q. In your Milosevic testimony, at transcript reference 22235
24 through -40, in reference to a document that is in evidence in this case
25 as D271, you testified about convoys carrying materials, ammunitions,
1 weapons and other items from Belgrade to Banja Luka after the JNA units
2 in the area became VRS units. So after the 18th of May, 1992.
3 And you testified that the vehicles from the 1st Krajina Corps
4 that would be driven to Belgrade empty would then pick up toilet paper
5 from a factory in Belgrade and then:
6 "On the return journey that they should pick up material and
7 equipment from the units of the Yugoslav People's Army on the territory
8 of Yugoslavia, or, rather, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."
9 And then during your direct examination yesterday, two days ago,
10 I believe, you testified that convoys of 30 to 35 trucks travelled from
11 Banja Luka to Belgrade and back, carrying supplies from Belgrade on an
12 almost daily basis.
13 What was the time-period during which these convoys were making
14 the trips to and from Belgrade?
15 A. Your Honours, there's a dilemma here. When the toilet paper was
16 mentioned, that factory was in Banja Luka, and they delivered goods to
17 Serbia, so that was paper for Serbia. And from Serbia, the trucks
18 constantly went in convoys not -- not convoys every day. Convoys went
19 once or twice a month at the outside. Only individual trucks went daily.
20 And they would bring weapons and ammunition, weapons not so often,
21 ammunition and other equipment. And some of the weapons were transported
22 even by air.
23 Q. Mr. Selak, you've already testified about that document and
24 those -- and the route carrying the toilet paper and back in your
25 Milosevic testimony. I'm interested in what time-frame you were
1 referring to on your direct examination when you testified that 30 to 35
2 trucks travelled from Banja Luka to Belgrade and back, carrying supplies
3 on almost a daily basis. What was the time-frame in which you were
5 A. That was the spring of 1992. In 1991, in December, convoys
6 travelled other routes, such as via Tuzla as well.
7 But speaking of Banja Luka, that corridor was very important. It
8 was a life-line in the spring of 1992 when the Army of Republika Srpska
9 was proclaimed, when the operations started, and the Army of Bosnia and
10 Herzegovina tried to cut off that route. Their Tuzla units were trying
11 to cut off that route. And that's why we needed combat vehicles for
12 escort of these convoys and aviation, et cetera.
13 Q. In order to travel back and forth between Banja Luka and
14 Belgrade, regardless of the route, these convoys containing ammunition
15 and other weapons and other materials would have to cross the border
16 between Serbia and Bosnia. And is it correct that the Serbian MUP had
17 controls on the border?
18 A. [No audible response]
19 Q. Mr. Selak, your answer was not audible. Could you repeat your
21 A. The border crossing was at Brcko. It was called Srpska Raca.
22 That was the border crossing between Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
23 That's where the corridor went and the route convoys took. It was
24 Srpska Raca. And it 1992, I travelled that route, and the police would
25 check our documentation and there were even UN force there is; that is, a
1 group of UN officers that also controlled the border at Srpska Raca. It
2 was a bit illogical, incongruous. And I know from personal experience
3 that there were abuses by the UN because when military transports
4 travelled, they would move away from the border crossing, and the
5 transports went through. What's interesting is the information, how the
6 goods were camouflaged that went from Serbia to Bosnia and Herzegovina
7 and vice versa.
8 Custom seals were placed over the tarpaulin on trucks, and the
9 goods declared would be one thing, and the actual shipment was fuel. So
10 I -- I was there a couple of times, and I -- I was a witness of the
11 transport of various goods.
12 Q. You've mentioned --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour, you were talking about the trucks going
14 empty to Belgrade, loading toilet paper there. I'm just trying to fully
15 understand. And you refer to 22.235 to -240.
16 What I read there is something different. Cellulose paper
17 factory in Banja Luka by 1600 hours to load 100 tonnes of toilet paper.
18 Vehicles spent the night over there. Next day at 6.30 the motor vehicles
19 shall be collected at the work organisation, refueled, and shall set off
20 for Belgrade at 700 hours and then to deliver that in Belgrade.
21 MS. HARBOUR: Yes, Your Honour. And the witness has also
22 clarified that, I think. If my question was --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but you -- you -- well, you put it just the
24 other way: Going empty to Belgrade and loading toilet paper. And I
25 wondered what the basis for that question was, but apparently it was a
2 MS. HARBOUR: It was a mistake.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 Please proceed.
5 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honours, my next question is the kind of
6 question which you gave some guidance about yesterday. And I've
7 carefully studied your guidance and I have endeavoured to craft the
8 question accordingly. Once you've heard the question, I have prepared a
9 brief submission regarding why I believe that the question should be
10 asked the way that I've crafted it, and I leave it to Your Honours
11 whether you'd like to hear my submission.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Jordash will carefully listen as well.
13 Please proceed.
14 MS. HARBOUR:
15 Q. Mr. Selak, in your Milosevic testimony at transcript page 22257
16 which is e-court page 62 of Exhibit D699 in this case, Mr. Milosevic
17 asked you if it was not the case that the VRS's approach to the conflict
18 on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina was to "curb any possible
19 incidents of conduct that could tarnish the dignity and reputation of
20 that image."
21 This is at -- Mr. Milosevic took these words from Exhibit D726 in
22 this case. You responded at the same transcript page:
23 "No, that was not the approach because 280.000 victims were not
24 killed by individuals but by the army, paramilitary organisations, and
25 volunteer units."
1 Mr. Selak, based on your own personal knowledge and experience,
2 do you have any information that would allow you to exclude that special
3 units of the Serbian DB also contributed to these atrocities?
4 A. Your Honour, from the end of the war, we, in the War Crimes
5 Institute, have been studying documentation about the involvement of all
6 the peoples, the Serbs, the Bosniaks, and all the others in the war in
7 Bosnia and Herzegovina. There were volunteers from all sides, and the
8 personnel was provided in an organised way. We had documentation exactly
9 how many people were involved. When I gave the number 280.000, we are
10 still studying this number. It's probably lower, as we know now, but it
11 is still 100- to 150.000.
12 However, concerning the organisation of travels of -- of groups,
13 and we have Kukanjac's orders about volunteer units, we know - we know
14 for a fact - that groups from Serbia came in an organised manner. There
15 is an order from the General Staff of the Yugoslavia army about units
16 from the Uzice and Valjevo corps being involved in operations in Bosnia.
17 When I reviewed the documentation that was ceased from the VRS here in
18 the Tribunal, I found that document, among others, so these units from
19 Serbia were involved in operations in Bosnia.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Doesn't answer your question, I take it.
21 MS. HARBOUR:
22 Q. It doesn't exactly answer my question, Mr. Selak. I'm referring
23 specifically to --
24 A. Would you kindly repeat the question.
25 Q. I will. Referring specifically to special units of the
1 Serbian State Security Service in the Republic of Serbia, based on your
2 personal knowledge, do you have information that would allow you to
3 exclude that these units participated in the crimes that we've been
5 A. At that time, I did not have that information.
6 Q. And right now you --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Again, that's -- that's a bit -- let me try to
8 clarify the issue.
9 In your testimony in the Milosevic case, you say, Those 280.000
10 were not killed by individuals, but they were killed by the army, by
11 paramilitary organisations, and by volunteer units.
12 Now, is there any fact known to you which would allow you to say
13 that any of these units or entities you mentioned are not linked to the
14 Serbian DB?
15 Is there anything you'd say, Well, when I talk about the army,
16 paramilitary organisations, and volunteer, I know for sure, because of
17 this and this and this fact, that they were not in any way linked to the
18 Serbian DB.
19 Do you have any fact to your knowledge; or do you say, No, I do
20 not have any facts which would allow me to say that they are not linked
21 to the Serbian DB?
22 Is the question clear to you?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The question is clear to me,
24 Your Honour.
25 However, in this document, it says that the army distributed
1 weapons to people. It doesn't say whether, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, or in
2 Serbia, about 60.000 pieces of infantry weapons, and the document also
3 says that the army agrees and approves of the formation of volunteer
4 units that were not part of the Yugoslav People's Army, and it was those
5 units that committed those crimes. And loads of them came from the
6 Republic of Serbia. I know that for a fact. Unfortunately, it's true.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But again you say, I know that they came from
8 the Republic of Serbia. Is there any fact known to you which would allow
9 you to say, Well, they came from Serbia but they certainly were not
10 linked in any way, they could not be linked to the DB; or do you say, No,
11 I don't have such knowledge, which would then leave it open, whether or
12 not they had been linked to the DB in any way?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I repeat once again.
14 The personnel that came from Serbia to Bosnia-Herzegovina, apart from
15 military organisations, had to come with the knowledge of the
16 Ministry of the Interior of the Serbia, because the MUP of Serbia always
17 knew, had to know, who was leaving and who was crossing the border. And
18 that's not military organisation. It was the civilian organisation. The
19 Ministry of Interior, they monitor who is leaving and who is coming into
20 the country. That's my argument. The army did not interfere with that.
21 JUDGE ORIE: You rightly say that's your argument. You are
22 drawing inferences from what you know to be the system, without having
23 any specific knowledge about links to the DB, but you say it hardly could
24 be else, because they controlled the borders.
25 Is that correctly understood?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, precisely, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
3 Please proceed, Ms. Harbour.
4 MS. HARBOUR: I have no further questions, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Harbour.
6 Then I suggest that we first take a break.
7 After the break, how much time would the parties need?
8 Mr. Bakrac.
9 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if you allow me, ten to
10 15 minutes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Ten to 15 minutes.
12 And, Mr. Jordash, could you give an estimate already.
13 MR. JORDASH: 20 minutes, please.
14 JUDGE ORIE: 20 minutes.
15 Then we'll take a break, and we resume at five minutes to 11.00.
16 --- Recess taken at 10.23 a.m.
17 --- On resuming at 10.58 a.m.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac.
19 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Cross-examination by Mr. Bakrac:
21 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Selak.
22 A. Good morning.
23 Q. We did not have occasion to speak to each other and I will now
24 move onto the topic I'm interested in.
25 My learned friend asked you about volunteers and about whether
1 you could rule out the possibility of volunteer units having been armed.
2 Can we now call up P1312.
3 You will tell me if you are familiar with the document; and, if
4 you are not, whether you are familiar with some of the facts contained in
5 that document.
6 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Can we have page 1, please.
7 Q. It is dated the 3rd of April, 1992. As it seems, it is the
8 1st Administration of the Federal Secretariat of National Defence that
9 sent it to the General Staff of the armed forces of the SFRY.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Have you had a look of this page -- at this page?
12 A. Yes.
13 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Can we move to page 2.
14 Q. Please focus on the preamble and item 1.
15 A. Yes, go ahead.
16 Q. Mr. Selak, are you familiar with the document?
17 A. I have that document myself.
18 Q. Is it true that the General Staff of the armed forces of the
19 SFRY, in early April of 1992, issued an order to start forming staffs,
20 detachments, and brigades of volunteer units as soon as may be, and that
21 they be manned with the officer corps of the JNA, and that they be armed
22 and equipped?
23 A. Yes. I am familiar with that.
24 Q. Did this, in fact, come about?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Under the legislation in force at the time was it allowed for the
2 JNA to recruit volunteers?
3 A. Volunteers were not part of the Yugoslav People's Army, but they
4 were recruited in order to bring the manpower levels up.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour.
6 MS. HARBOUR: Mr. Bakrac began with saying that this arose from
7 questions about whether Mr. Selak could rule out the possibility of
8 volunteer units being -- having been armed.
9 In fact, we don't dispute that volunteer units were armed by the
10 JNA. So this issue was actually not a part of the cross-examination.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac.
12 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I may have
13 misunderstood then. What was important, also, was the time-period when
14 the arming effort took place in Bosnia. But I will move on.
15 Q. Mr. Selak, my learned friend from the Prosecution asked you if
16 you could rule out the possibility that police units, too, were engaged
17 in arming. And you answered that.
18 I would like to have a quick look at 1D1995, which is related to
19 the period that you spent on the field, 24th of April, 1992, and is
20 related to your area of responsibility, i.e., Banja Luka.
21 Can you tell me if you are familiar with the facts contained in
22 the document? It is issued by the command of the 2nd Military District
23 of the 24th of April, 1992.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. It is sent to the Federal Secretariat of National Defence, its
1 technical administration.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Of the Ministry of Interior of the Serbian Republic of
5 "We have received a request from the ministry, strictly
6 confidential number 11, of the 23rd of April, 1992, for materiel and
7 technical equipment to be used by the special purposes police detachment
8 of the Banja Luka Security Services Centre."
9 Next follows a list of equipment.
10 A. 88 items.
11 Q. Precisely so, Mr. Selak.
12 A. I have that document.
13 Q. 88 items. Did you know that the MUP of Banja Luka, precisely for
14 its own purposes, asked that it be furnished with weapons; also for the
15 purposes of the special unit of the JNA.
16 A. Yes, I'm aware of it.
17 Q. Do you know if these -- this sort of equipment was delivered?
18 A. Well, yes. The materiel and technical equipment requested here
19 was delivered. I don't know if all. And I know that some of it came
20 from the logistics base in Banja Luka, though I can't tell you
21 specifically which items.
22 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, since the witness is
23 familiar with the document and has confirmed his knowledge of these
24 events, I would like to tender this into evidence.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I have the document with me
2 JUDGE ORIE: Isn't it true that you introduced it as an existing
3 exhibit, Mr. Bakrac?
4 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Oh. Let me see ...
6 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] The previous one was an exhibit.
7 JUDGE ORIE: The previous one, yes. This one then. Any
9 MS. HARBOUR: No objection.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D1995 will receive number D742,
12 Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
14 Please proceed.
15 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 Q. Mr. Selak, kindly tell us, if you remember, that there was the
17 military post box 5042 in Banja Luka, or thereabouts.
18 A. Yes, I do believe that there was such a military post box, but
19 not in Banja Luka. I think it existed in Doboj. The Banja Luka Corps
20 had a different post box. 5042, I think it was Doboj, but it's been a
21 long time and it's difficult to remember these figures.
22 Q. It's all right, Mr. Selak. Do you know that in Doboj in this
23 military post 5042 there existed a volunteer unit?
24 A. I was never in that area. I never visited the unit, so I can't
25 confirm or deny it. I don't know.
1 Q. Thank you, Mr. Selak. I have two or three quick questions for
3 My learned friend showed you P626, which is an intercept that you
4 looked at and commented upon yesterday.
5 Can we have page 2? I'd like to check if we can clarify an
7 Mr. Selak, page 2 of the B/C/S. If you look at the third row
8 from the bottom, Slobodan says:
9 "It is of strategic importance for the future of RAM."
10 Do you know what RAM is?
11 What my question is for you is, what is the RAM?
12 A. It is a plan developed by the General Staff in Belgrade, which
13 also included activities in Bosnia-Herzegovina. I don't know the
14 details, but it was a well-known plan that had to do with combat and
15 which outlined a political objective. I don't know the details, but the
16 RAM plan was already around in 1992 or perhaps 1993, I'm not sure.
17 I know of its existence, I didn't have it in my hands, but I
18 discussed it with my colleagues at work. I don't know the details.
19 Q. Thank you. During my colleague's cross-examination, I think that
20 you said, at one point, that you fled Banja Luka for Germany but what the
21 transcript does not reflect is the town or the country you travelled
22 through to reach Germany.
23 A. I went to Germany via Belgrade, rather, Srpska Raca and Belgrade,
24 where I spent the night at hotel Moskva, and later on I joined my
25 relatives. I spent 11 days in Belgrade and then I took the German plane,
1 Lufthansa, to fly to Germany to join my son, and that was on the 1st of
2 June, 1995. I spent some 13 or 14 days in Belgrade.
3 Q. Mr. Selak, did you know that a large number of Bosniak refugees
4 were taken on into various refugee camps in Serbia, including Belgrade?
5 A. I know that there were many refugees that found accommodation in
6 Serbia but most of them were from East Bosnia because that was where
7 there was the largest presence of paramilitaries who cleansed Eastern
8 Bosnia or Bosniaks, and the Bosniaks fled, among other places, to Serbia.
9 There was a camp in Zrenjanin, Belgrade, and Novi Sad, perhaps elsewhere
10 as well. I know that people ran for their lives and fled to Serbia,
11 among other places, though I say again most of them were from
12 Eastern Bosnia which is close to the Serbian border.
13 Q. Thank you, Mr. Selak. My learned friend asked you, and you said
14 that you supposed that the police forces were aware of volunteers joining
15 JNA units.
16 This is my question: At that time, in 1992, was it allowed for
17 civilians to go to the theatres of war and join JNA units as volunteers?
18 Was it possible under the law to stop a civilian who is unarmed from
19 proceeding to join JNA units?
20 A. Your Honours, the Yugoslav Presidency ordered that people be
21 mobilised. But I have to give you the boarder information. The recruits
22 who were serving their compulsory military service in the JNA, Bosniaks,
23 Croats, Slovenians, left the ranks of the army. The army lacked
24 personnel and volunteers were then admitted precisely because of the low
25 strength of units, and it was expected that combat would follow. That
1 was why the formation and arming of volunteer units was permitted.
2 Q. My last question, Mr. Selak: You said that, in Bosnia, some 68-
3 or 69.000 pieces of weapons were distributed.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Do you consider that amount to be large; and was it sufficient
6 for the arming of civilians; or was there need for additional arms?
7 A. Your Honour, I said yesterday that the amount was roughly 60.000,
8 which would make up nearly four corps. This is something that we have
9 recorded for.
10 However, many convoys were stopped and weapons were seized, and
11 none of it was recorded. And all of it was distributed to the Serbian
12 people across Bosnia-Herzegovina, or perhaps I should say
13 Republika Srpska because that was not the case of Sarajevo, Zenica,
14 Tuzla, and so on.
15 So all of it was distributed to the Serbian people, house to
16 house, to volunteer units, to TO units, et cetera. People even dug up
17 holes to hide weapons and, later on, these caches would be discovered,
18 and this was forbidden.
19 Q. Thank you, Mr. Selak.
20 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour, for allowing
21 me to put additional questions.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, any further questions for the witness?
23 MR. JORDASH: Yes, please.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Once the furniture is installed, you may proceed.
25 Re-examination by Mr. Jordash:
1 Q. Just a few questions, if I can, Mr. Selak. I just want to pick
2 up on the subject of the recorded conversations about events in 1991 in
3 Western Slavonia and the impact on the Banja Luka region.
4 MR. JORDASH: Could we have on the screen, please, 65 ter 804.
5 This is another intercept and this is a conversation between Karadzic and
6 Uzelac. Not to be shown to the public, please.
7 Q. And you'd like, when this comes on the screen, for you to read
8 just the first three pages. I think the fourth page has the name of an
9 operative on it, so if we can -- if we just stick with the first three
11 I want to try to, Mr. Selak, understand a little bit more about
12 what was happening in 1991 in these areas.
13 Please indicate when you want the next page.
14 A. Next page, please.
15 MR. JORDASH: And page 2 of the English, too, please.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can I have page 3?
17 MR. JORDASH: Yes, please. Thank you.
18 And perhaps for the English, for Your Honours, if we could go to
19 page 3 of the English.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 4, please.
21 MR. JORDASH: Could ...
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've read it.
23 MR. JORDASH:
24 Q. Now, at one point, Karadzic says - this is page 2 of the English
25 and 2 of the B/C/S:
1 "We have issued instructions to mobilisation everyone and to
2 subordinate everyone to the command of the Yugoslav People's Army."
3 And then a few lines down, Karadzic says:
4 "It's important that some of those over 40, and others, remain,
5 that some remain to protect the villages."
6 This conversation took place in July of 1991. Do you know
7 anything about the villages, which ones Karadzic may have had in mind, as
8 in need of attention or defence?
9 A. All the municipalities mentioned in this document and the
10 majority population were Serbs. The operations were carried out in the
11 area of Kupres which borders with the Republic of Croatia. There was
12 combat going on there. Elements of my own unit were deployed to Kupres
13 as logistics support. Men, up to 40, were supposed to respond to
14 mobilisation call-ups and those over 40 were supposed to stay behind in
15 their villages to protect them.
16 Quite a lot of the population fled the area. There were people
17 fleeing Banja Luka as well. We kept sending assistance to them. My
18 commander, who was there himself, said that there were quite a few
19 killings going on and that the police force was unable to deal with that
20 on their own. It was the month of July of 1991 when we had conducted
21 mobilisation. Many men in Banja Luka refused to respond to these
22 call-ups, and we had to send military police patrols to go after them.
23 There were quite a few such cases in Banja Luka, Your Honour, where
24 Bosniaks and Croats refused to respond to call-ups and would then be
25 searched and -- and there would be police sent after them.
1 Q. And why was a lot of the population fleeing the area; and why
2 were people fleeing Banja Luka; and why were you sending assistance to
4 A. There was fighting going on up there, as I said, in the direction
5 of Croatia as well, and I had to provide support for these units in
6 combat. And citizens were fleeing these areas where not only fighting
7 that was lawful was going on, there was a lot of unlawful occurrences as
8 well, causing citizens to flee. Unfortunately, later on, in 1992, there
9 were quite a few people fleeing Banja Luka as well. But we are talking
10 now about 1991 when there was fighting going on in Croatia, which became
11 independent, but the army did not withdraw from all the garrisons. The
12 Serbs formed their own authorities, and that was what caused the
13 population to start fleeing, especially, as I say, the Croats and
15 I didn't bring along the census. I think I have it in my hotel
16 room. I have the 1991 census that was carried out in
17 Bosnia-Herzegovina --
18 Q. Mr. -- sorry to cut you, but there's just some further details I
19 would like concerning what you've just said.
20 You said:
21 "The Serbs formed their own authorities, and that was what caused
22 the population to start fleeing, especially, as I say, the Croats and
24 And when did that take place?
25 A. Again, there was fighting going in the month of July in Kupres
1 and the border area with Croatia where units of the JNA and TO were
2 engaged. This situation prevailed until the months of January or
3 February 1992. I don't know when the fighting stopped. And then when
4 Republika Srpska was set up, that was a different issue.
5 So I don't know exactly when it all got resolved. I think it was
6 the month of January or February.
7 Q. Of which year?
8 A. 1992.
9 Q. So I do understand you correctly? You're saying it was
10 January/February 1992 when the Serbs formed their own authorities, and
11 that's what caused the population to start fleeing? It was in 1992?
12 A. Your Honour, on the 24th of October, 1991, the Assembly of the
13 Serbian People proclaimed the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
14 That was when officially the process of legalisation began. It was not
15 accepted that Bosnia-Herzegovina should secede from Yugoslavia. There
16 was the wish to stay within Yugoslavia, and that was why, on
17 24th of October, 1991, the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina was
18 proclaimed. And I will never forget that date.
19 Q. Thank you. Let's go to P673, please, the intercept we looked at
20 before between Stanisic and Karadzic.
21 MR. JORDASH: Under seal, please.
22 May I tender the last exhibit please Your Honour.
23 MS. HARBOUR: [Microphone not activated] no objection,
24 Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
1 THE REGISTRAR: [Microphone not activated] Document 804 will
2 receive number --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Microphone, microphone.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Document 804 will receive number D743,
5 Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ORIE: D743 is admitted into evidence.
7 MR. JORDASH: Apparently we're in closed session, which I'm not
8 sure -- no, we're not.
9 JUDGE ORIE: We are not.
10 MR. JORDASH:
11 Q. This is an intercept you were shown before the break --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour.
13 MS. HARBOUR: I'm sorry. Can I just verify that that's -- D743
14 has been admitted under seal?
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it has to be under seal.
16 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, then it is -- the status is that it is a
18 confidential exhibit under seal.
19 Please proceed.
20 MR. JORDASH:
21 Q. Now, you were the question about whether Stanisic seemed to be
22 well informed about events in Western Slavonia, and you answered, Yes.
23 And so I want to ask you about the -- those events and what made you
24 conclude he was --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, isn't it true that the question was
1 whether, on the basis of this document, it seemed that, and then the
2 witness said, Yes, and didn't I then say something about whether the
3 witness had any personal knowledge or whether we --
4 MR. JORDASH: And that's what I'm going to ask him about, whether
5 he has got personal knowledge about some of the events discussed in -- in
6 this intercept.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I understood that he had no personal knowledge. But
8 if I'm wrong, then ...
9 MS. HARBOUR: I believe he said he had no personal knowledge of
10 Stanisic's knowledge.
11 MR. JORDASH: That's right. And I want to ask him about the
12 events in Western Slavonia that are referred to in this intercept.
13 JUDGE ORIE: So apart from Mr. Stanisic's knowledge, whether the
14 witness has knowledge about him, yes.
15 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let the questions be very clear on that
17 because otherwise we get a long explanation on matters which may not
18 reflect personal knowledge of the witness.
19 So could you be very clear on that.
20 MR. JORDASH: Certainly.
21 Q. If you look at the first page there, Mr. Selak, and Karadzic
22 notes, or -- sorry, yes. Karadzic notes the following:
23 "From Banja Luka, 5.000 new people have arrived in Banja Luka.
24 Ten thousand arrive tomorrow. I don't know why they are leaving,
25 those -- those villages there."
1 Are you able to cast any light on what Karadzic was talking
2 about? Do you know anything about the arrival of 5.000 or 15.000 people
3 in Banja Luka in December of 1991?
4 A. Well, people were fleeing Slavonia, Your Honours. Serbs were
5 fleeing because of the fighting going on there. Croatia, at the time,
6 was seeking independence, using also armed force to get it, and that's
7 why people were fleeing Slavonia. At least part of the Serbian
8 population were running for their lives, and they were in fear of the
9 consequences of the fighting, and many of them came to Banja Luka.
10 Your Honours, allow me to say one more thing. Even in 1995,
11 everything was on wheels in Slavonia. Everybody was running to Serbia,
12 but that was prevented. Peace was signed, and that didn't happen. But
13 it was mayhem. People loaded all their belongings, all their furniture
14 onto trucks, onto anything on wheels, trying to run to Serbia. But,
15 eventually that didn't happen.
16 Q. Let's just move a bit further into the conversation between
17 Karadzic and Stanisic.
18 Page 2 of the English and 2 of the B/C/S.
19 Karadzic notes there halfway down the English page -- no, further
20 down the page towards the bottom:
21 "They got as far as Pakrac. Up there are villages, man, they are
22 villages there, from Podravska Slatina, from Bocina Gora. Everybody has
23 out from Mount Bilogora, there's no one to protect them from that side,
24 they were territorials there, there is no army there, that's the
1 Do you know what that is a reference to? Are you able to cast
2 any light on that -- or those comments?
3 A. I repeat: Civilians were fleeing because they did not feel safe
4 staying on. They -- they were fleeing from the fighting in Sarajevo, in
5 Banja Luka, and they were fleeing for their lives. Those were
6 municipalities with a majority Serb population. They were afraid of the
7 Croatian forces, and Vukovar later happened as well. There was mayhem.
8 People were afraid of revenge, and I understand them completely. They
9 had to run because the civilian authorities were not functioning. It was
10 a combat area.
11 Q. But then let's go, finally, to page 5 of the English and 4 of the
13 And Stanisic says, "they won't give up ...," this is halfway
14 down the page in English:
15 "They won't give up and there's no one there to protect them.
16 They're scared stiff. Fucking hell. They are burning villages, killing,
17 fucking hell, slitting throats. What?"
18 And Karadzic says:
20 And then Stanisic, going over the page in the B/C/S, says:
21 "We should have agreed to send all we could and raise -- raise of
22 the volunteers possible there, raise them there."
23 Do you know, Mr. Selak, whether, what is described there of
24 villages burning and people having their throats slit, whether that has
25 any basis, in fact, in December of 1991, and the need, as expressed by
1 Stanisic, for some kind of defence?
2 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour.
3 MS. HARBOUR: Could I just ask that those be asked as two
4 separate questions so it's clear to the witness.
5 MR. JORDASH: Okay.
6 Q. Do you know anything about the events described by Stanisic in
7 terms of what was happening in some of the villages, burnings and
8 slitting of throats, and so on?
9 A. I don't know the details. I know that was happening in the
10 entire area but where exactly, when, I don't know. I did not have any
11 detailed reports or information about actual events and who was
13 Q. From your knowledge and experience of being on the ground during
14 this period of time, did any of the Serb villages need protection from
15 this kind of atrocity?
16 A. Your Honours, that was the territory of Croatia, and the combat
17 going on there was involving the JNA. It was responsible for these
18 operations. If Croatia became independent, then the JNA should have
19 pulled out and let the Croatian authorities to organise new government in
20 those areas. However, the army did not withdraw. It got involved in two
21 armed operations. Even volunteer units were formed. However, the
22 Croatian forces were stronger, and then it all the resulted in a
23 massacre, from which people were fleeing, as I described earlier.
24 Q. Sorry. At what stages were the Croatia forces stronger; and at
25 what stage did the massacre in relation to this commence?
1 A. Pursuant to an order from General Adzic. In October 1991,
2 General Adzic ordered me in Banja Luka to go tour Pakrac and Lipik
3 together with Talic. And at that time, the rocket brigades from
4 Banja Luka targeted Lipik and Pakrac with multiple rocket-launcher.
5 There was not a single response from the Croatian side. However, that
6 was in 1991. From then on, the Croatian forces advanced from Zagreb,
7 Sisak, et cetera, to recover their territory from the JNA. We did not
8 have details about these operations because it was the Banja Luka Corps
9 that conducted them in addition to other units, and I don't know the
10 details. But I know the outcome. Many people got killed because of what
11 the JNA did. Because, in 1991, at a referendum in May, or maybe earlier,
12 Croatia declared its independence.
13 Q. Mr. Selak, when did the Croatia forces advance from Zagreb? Are
14 you able to put a month on that, please.
15 A. I cannot give you the exact months. They organised their own
16 army in time. I don't know which unit was mobilised when, in what
17 complement and what missions they had. I really don't know any of these
18 things, because I didn't have access to that sort of information in
19 Banja Luka.
20 Q. Was it -- from what you have said, it was after October 1991.
21 Was it within 1991?
22 A. Yes, after October 1991. Right.
23 Q. Within 1991?
24 A. I don't understand the question.
25 Q. It was after 1991 -- sorry. After October 1991. But was it
1 still within 1991 when the Croatian forces advanced and the massacre
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Thank you. No further questions.
5 Thank you, Mr. Selak.
6 MR. JORDASH: Thank you Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Jordash.
8 Any further questions?
9 MS. HARBOUR: No further questions, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Since the Bench has no further questions either,
13 Mr. Selak, this concludes your testimony in this Court.
14 I'd like to thank you very much for coming the long way to
15 The Hague and for having answered all the questions that were put to you
16 by the parties and by the Bench, and I'd like to wish you a safe return
17 home again.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: You may follow the usher.
20 [The witness withdrew]
21 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, if this would be a suitable time to make
23 the submissions you intended to make.
24 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
25 The submission related to two expert reports, a MUP report and a
1 military report. And the Prosecution has some very serious concerns
2 about the format and the way that we must deal with these reports and
3 wants to raise them.
4 I'm going to ask Ms. Marcus to deal with the MUP report and then
5 Mr. Weber to deal with the military report.
6 I will ask Ms. Marcus to address you now on the MUP report.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Marcus.
8 MS. MARCUS: Good morning, Your Honours, thank you. With respect
9 to the MUP report and for the information of the Chamber, the Prosecution
10 has had to invest substantial time, I would say approximately two weeks
11 thus far, just trying to determine what source material has been provided
12 and what is still pending.
13 When we request this material from the Defence we often receive
14 only partial responses with comments upon the importance of our requests,
15 thus, requiring repeated correspondence over one document or one footnote
16 to try to convince the Defence to provide us with the sourced material.
17 I find it surprising, to say the least, that the Defence should put
18 forward a proposed expert report, fail to provide all the source
19 material, and then oblige the Prosecution to convince them that the
20 source material should be provided.
21 Furthermore the latest response we received on the 10th of
22 February from the Defence informs us that we will receive additional
23 feedback from Mr. Milosevic early this week - that would have been this
24 week - we're still waiting for that.
25 Then we will need to sit down, compare the material and
1 information provided by the Defence with the information provided by
2 Mr. Milosevic, and again determine what materials are still missing.
3 I will not take more time on this issue. We will be sending
4 another communication to the Defence with a chart of the correspondence
5 on each footnote and each source document. I don't see any other way to
6 do that. I would just like to point out that this process is so
7 time-consuming that we have not been able to get to analysing the report
8 itself due to the substantial amount of missing material and challenges
9 in receiving that material.
10 One more point on the MUP report I'd like to raise, namely the
11 inclusion in this report of portions which are irrelevant by -- according
12 to the Defence and which will not be relied upon by them according to
13 their own assertions. In an e-mail of the 10th of February the Simatovic
14 Defence asserted:
15 "In your letter you request documents only mentioned in the
16 report for the sake of clarity of pleading and general context. We do
17 believe that these documents are irrelevant for the case and will only
18 burden the case file without any real necessity. We do even offer to
19 omit sentences where these documents are mentioned."
20 In the e-mail of the 18th of January, the Simatovic Defence had
21 identified portions of the MUP report on which the Defence will not rely
22 and other portions which are "of very limited relevance."
23 Due to the time being invested in figuring out the missing
24 information in relation to these reports, we submit that this time should
25 not be spent on portions which the Simatovic Defence themselves will not
1 rely on or which they already concede are irrelevant. The Prosecution
2 submits that the Simatovic Defence should first be obliged to remove
3 those portions of each report - well, my colleague will discuss the
4 military report -- to remove those portions of the MUP report on which
5 they do not intend to rely or which they have determined are not
7 I now pass the floor to Mr. Weber for the military report.
16 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
18 MR. WEBER: Good morning. The Prosecution at this time provides
19 a submission with respect to the proposed military expert report provided
20 on 9 February 2012. The Prosecution refrains from using the author's
21 name of this report due to a pending motion for protective measures filed
22 on 30 December 2011. We do maintain our opposition to this individual
23 being extended the requested protective measures.
24 As part of this submission, the Prosecution does seek
25 clarification from both Defence teams as to whether the military expert
1 report is submitted as a joint report from both Defence teams. The
2 Prosecution notes that section D1 of the introduction of the report which
3 is 2D1066 states:
4 "The report has been prepared only and solely for the needs of
5 the Defence teams," plural, "in Court" --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, can we just ask if it is a joint
7 report, yes or no, then we get a yes or a no answer.
8 MR. JORDASH: It is not.
9 JUDGE ORIE: It's not.
10 Please proceed.
11 MR. WEBER: Okay.
12 The Prosecution would then like to place the following procedural
13 history on the record at this time: On 1 April 2011, the Trial Chamber
14 issued a Scheduling Order requiring the Defence to comply with disclosure
15 obligations by 7 June 2011. In a motion filed on 6 June 2011, the
16 Simatovic Defence requested an extension of time to disclose the reports
17 of two expert witnesses. This included the military expert report.
18 In paragraph 17 of the 6th June 2011 motion, the
19 Simatovic Defence stated that it anticipated having the B/C/S version of
20 its military expert report by 23 July 2011 with the English translation
21 to be made available no later than 12 August 2011.
22 On 16 November 2011, the Prosecution was sent a 732-page version
23 of the report in B/C/S. The cover page of the report contained the date
24 of November 2010. Based on this date, the Prosecution does not
25 understand and still does not understand the reason the Defence waited to
1 submit such a large report for translation when it appears that it was
2 available to them - meaning both Defence teams - in November 2010. Or,
3 for that matter, why the Defence teams did not disclose the report to the
4 Prosecution as required on 7 June 2011.
5 On 17 November 2011 the Simatovic Defence filed an update and
6 stated the military expert report had been completed and submitted for
7 translation on 4 August 2011. CLSS stated that the translation should be
8 completed by the end of the year.
9 The Prosecution notes the difference in the dates provided by the
10 Defence on 6 June and 17 November and submits the likelihood of receiving
11 an English translation of a 732-page report by 12 August was very low,
12 especially if it was just submitted for translation on the
13 4th of August, 2011.
14 On 9 February 2012, the Prosecution received notice of the expert
15 report pursuant to Rule 94 bis and the availability of an English
16 translation of the report. Upon initial review, it appears the current
17 B/C/S version of the report is 768 pages. The corresponding English
18 translation totals 1.105 pages. There appears to be a total of 3.178
19 different footnotes along with 130 appendices to the report. It does not
20 appear that the Defence has disclosed the English or B/C/S version of the
22 With respect to these appendices, the Prosecution would note that
23 the references to them in the report appear to indicate these attachments
24 include charts, figures, diagrams, and additional sections of the report
25 that discuss matters such as "logistic support in the JNA, TO OS SAO
1 Krajina, the establishment of the TO SAO K operation zones,
2 Western Slavonia TO, and TO of local Serbs in Croatia" just to name some
3 examples from parts 1 and 2 of the report.
4 In paragraph 5 of the Prosecution's response dated 10 June 2011
5 to the Simatovic Defence request for an extension of time to file its
6 expert report, the Prosecution submitted applicable law based upon the
7 Rules of Procedure and Evidence and jurisprudence from the Gotovina Trial
8 Chamber. This paragraph stated:
9 "Rule 94 bis (A) requires a party to disclose the full statement
10 and/or report of any expert witness within the time-limit prescribed by
11 the Trial Chamber. The jurisprudence indicates that while this
12 time-limit is not absolute, late disclosure of an expert report warrants
13 the same considerations as the additional of documents to the Rule 65 ter
14 exhibit list. The Chamber must therefore determine whether it would be
15 in the interests of justice to consider a belatedly filed expert report
16 by considering (A) whether the report is prima facie relevant and
17 probative; (B) whether the party submitting the report is shown good
18 cause for the belated submission; and (C), the extent to which the new
19 filing would create an additional burden upon the opposing party.
20 The Prosecution submits that this very standard should apply to
21 the military expert report submitted by the Defence on 9 February 2012.
22 The Prosecution submission would be there is a lack of good
23 cause. This individual has been retained as an expert by the Defence
24 teams since 2007 as reflected on the 8 May 2007 65 ter conference
25 transcript, page 372.
1 The reports appear to have been drafted by November 2010. The
2 Prosecution submits that based upon these facts which have become known
3 in terms of the timing of the report during the past few months, the
4 Defence lacks good cause for the belated submission of the report.
5 The Prosecution further submits that large portions of the report
6 do not appear to be of central relevance or probative of issues in this
7 case. As an example, the Prosecution would observe that part 2 of the
8 report entitled "The SFRY OS VJ and the conflict in Croatia 1991 to 1995"
9 contains discussions on the co-operation and co-ordination of tasks to
10 the Main Staff of the VJ and the relationship between the Command Staff
11 of the VJ and the SVK. There also appears to be a discussions of a
12 variety of combat operations and units for which the relevance is unclear
13 based upon the pre-trial brief of the Simatovic Defence. The Prosecution
14 also note sat the time that there appears to be redundant material and
15 analysis between the Defence report and the Theunens report. In
16 particular, we would note at this time the decisions of the military laws
17 and also the existence and use of temporary joint combat or ad hoc
19 The Prosecution would incorporate also the same concerns that
20 have been articulated for the MUP report. With respect to the military
21 expert report, going forward, in that there is likely to be
22 correspondence or communications that could arise about whether or not
23 large components of this report are of limited relevance or no relevance
24 to this case.
25 The submission of such a large expert report at the very end of
1 the case creates and extraordinary burden on the opposing party under
2 these circumstances. First, the Prosecution has great difficulty in
3 navigating the report since the page numbers and the table of contents do
4 not correspond to the page numbers of the English translation. In light
5 of the fact of that this is a very voluminous report, this often causes
6 great time in locating different sections of the report.
7 Second, there are over 1600 different sources, many of which
8 appear voluminous in and of themselves. These sources are referenced in
9 over 3.000 footnotes. The Prosecution is still in the process of
10 evaluating the amount of time necessary to process this report, but at
11 this time, we can state that without the means of cross-referencing
12 65 ter, ERN, exhibit numbers, and just the descriptions of the documents,
13 it will be very difficult to prepare such a large report in an efficient
14 manner. The Prosecution also sees there are hundreds of footnotes
15 without any 65 ter, ERN or exhibit number. Spot-checks have also
16 revealed that we are not in possession of a significant amount of English
17 translations for the underlying source documentation.
18 It appears that the report may contain large volume of evidence
19 that is not admitted and possibly not on the 65 ter lists of the parties.
20 In light of the variety of units and operations discussed in the report
21 and the documents the Prosecution may also possess, to contextualise
22 these matters, the potential volume of material in this case, could
23 greatly increase at a very late stage in the proceedings. The
24 Prosecution is concerned over these circumstances.
25 In light of the unclear relevance of some of the materials and
1 lack of notice by the Defence, the Prosecution is generally unsure of how
2 the Defence intends to rely on many of the materials or opinions
3 referenced in the military report.
4 Accordingly, the Prosecution respectfully requests at the very
5 least the following from the Trial Chamber:
6 First, a stay of the Prosecution's 30-day response deadline
7 pursuant to Rule 94 bis until the Defence provides complete B/C/S and
8 English versions of the entire report, including all appendices.
9 Second, the Prosecution requests that the Chamber require the
10 Defence to file a joint -- well, in this matter since it is not -- since
11 the Stanisic has indicated that it is not a joint report, that the
12 Simatovic Defence file a submission addressing the good cause for filing
13 the report at such a belated stage and explain the relevance of the
14 different sections of the report to their cases. It would be appreciated
15 if in doing so the Simatovic Defence could directly reference where in
16 their pre-trial brief they provided any notice to rely on such
17 information contained in the report. If there is no clear relevance or
18 no clear notice that have been provided, the Prosecution requests that
19 either the Simatovic Defence withdraw those portions of the report or
20 that the Trial Chamber strike those portions of the report based upon
21 submissions by the parties.
22 There are a number of other technical matters that are similar
23 to what was raised with respect to the MUP report. In order have a clear
24 record of many of these individual items, the Prosecution anticipates
25 also sending a letter with respect to the military expert report, and we
1 intend to copy the Chamber on this in order to keep the Chamber aware of
2 the situation.
3 Thank you, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
5 Mr. Jordash.
6 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, I'm not going to detain the Court with a
7 response because obviously that concerns Simatovic. But I am responding
8 to the suggestion that we, as Defence teams, should have disclosed the
9 report to the Prosecution as required by 7th of June 2001 [sic]. I don't
10 know of any Rule which requires the Stanisic Defence to disclose a report
11 that it does not seek to rely upon.
12 JUDGE ORIE: That's on the record.
13 Mr. Bakrac.
14 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, let me first give an
15 assurances to the Prosecution and the Trial Chamber. At some point my
16 learned friend Mr. Weber said that perhaps this was ill-intended on the
17 part of the Defence. Wells let me reassure you that this there is no
18 ill-intention on the part of the Defence. We are doing our best to
19 provide adequate Defence for our client whilst co-operating with the
20 Prosecution and the Trial Chamber.
21 Mr. Weber said quite rightly that this expert report has been on
22 our list since 2007. I wish to remind my colleagues from the Prosecution
23 and Their Honours that the entire Defence team for Simatovic -- almost
24 the -- in fact, the entire Defence team was -- had to change in 2009 due
25 to a tragic circumstance. I do not want to be seen as if I were shifting
1 this to anyone else, but we were doing our best to rise up to the
2 challenge and grapple with the case.
3 There did come about a misunderstanding because we thought that
4 this joint expert report, who was on the list in 2007, we thought that
5 this expert would end up on the Stanisic witness list. We don't want to
6 say that it was the fault of the Defence for Stanisic. Rather, by the
7 time we noticed that the expert witness was not on the list, we tried to
8 get in touch with him, obtain his report, and file it. It is also true
9 that my estimates with regard to the translation were wrong. We thought
10 it would be much faster. We were waiting for the translation to be
11 completed until several days ago, when --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, let me just -- a lot of words. 23rd of
13 July, you say, English translation, that's at least what Mr. Weber said,
14 is to be expected on the 12th of August.
15 How could you possibly have thought that 730 pages would be
16 translated in two and a half weeks during the summer recess? I mean, we
17 thought it would be much faster.
18 Explain to me what experience you have which would allow you to
19 expect reasonably a translation of 6 -- 730-page document within two and
20 a half weeks.
21 Could you please explain to me on what basis you could have
22 thought that it would be any quicker than three, four, five months?
23 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I simply have no
24 explanation for that or justification. I gave that estimate lightly,
25 obviously. I don't know what the resources or -- at the disposal of the
1 the translation service are. We were -- we were given back some
2 translations quite soon after we had requested them, and that led me to
3 believe --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Translations of documents of what size? Three
5 pages? Four pages? We're talking about 730 pages, Mr. Bakrac. So even
6 to come up and say, Well, sometimes we receive translations rather
7 quickly. Are you not taking it seriously when we put this question to
8 you when you say, Well, we sometimes receive it very quickly.
9 730 pages, to give an expectation to receive in the middle of the
10 summer recess, a translation within two and a half weeks, you should not
11 have said that without having consulted with CLSS. And I take that if
12 you would have consulted with them, that you would not have had any
13 reasonable expectations to have received it within two and a half weeks
14 in the middle of the summer.
15 Please proceed, and try to focus on the core. I consider the bad
16 intents to be rather in the margin than in the core. The primary concern
17 of the Prosecution is how can we possibly deal with this material at this
18 stage, and isn't the Simatovic Defence to be blamed for this situation to
19 arise. That's the issue.
20 Could you please focus on that.
21 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that my
22 colleague, Mr. Petrovic, was in communication with Ms. Marcus, and in
23 their exchange, he suggested a meeting. Perhaps the most expedient
24 solution would be, if you agree, that we meet next week with our
25 colleagues from the Prosecution and try and resolve the matter in
1 practical terms.
2 JUDGE ORIE: When did Mr. Petrovic suggest a meeting?
3 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in a letter, dated the
4 10th of February --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's three years too late, approximately,
6 isn't it? When the expert was tasked in 2007 or 2006 or 2007, then to
7 say, Well, let's resolve the matters. The problem is huge. And to say,
8 We'll meet and then the matter will be resolved is of a similar kind as
9 to say on the 23rd of July that there will be an English translation by
10 the 12th of August. I admire your optimism.
11 Please proceed.
12 And by the way, what was the answer by Ms. Marcus or ...
13 MS. MARCUS: Your Honour, that -- that offer was with respect to
14 the MUP report. It was in an e-mail communication regarding some details
15 of footnotes in respect of the MUP report.
16 I would just add that this problem that we have with the military
17 report certainly cannot be resolved in a meeting.
18 JUDGE ORIE: It seems that it's unlikely.
19 Has any suggestion been made to resolve the matter in a meeting,
20 as far as the military report is concerned? Did you ever offer that,
21 Mr. -- or did Mr. Petrovic offer that?
22 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. Several days ago,
23 we sent the translation of the expert report to the Prosecution, and we
24 are still reviewing the footnotes and annexes to see what is missing. I
25 will deal with this as soon as possible and get in touch with the
1 Prosecution to see which are the portions that we can delete, in order to
2 make this large expert report acceptable.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, could you tell us.
4 Mr. Weber told us that you indicated to the Prosecution that you
5 would not rely on portions of the police report, the MUP report.
6 Could you tell us approximately how many of these 180 pages you
7 would not rely on?
8 No, I'm not asking for -- but would it be one-third, or half, or
9 20 per cent or -- approximately.
10 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I am in a position now
11 where I may say something that would be imprecise. Can I have some time,
12 please, to review that and get back to you with an accurate figure of
13 what it is that we can set aside as the portion that we will not be
14 relying on.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Well, you indicated that to the Prosecution, isn't
16 it? So you must have an idea about it. That's at least what Ms. Marcus
17 told us.
18 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. That concerns the
19 police report.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'm asking about the police report, because I
21 referred to 180 pages, which is the police report, Mr. Bakrac.
22 So what did you have on your mind when you communicated to
23 Ms. Marcus that you might not rely on certain portions of the police
24 report? I take it that you had identified them, at least to some extent.
25 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, they are portions
1 related to the situation in Kosovo in 1989, Presidency decisions, that's
2 to say SFRY Presidency decisions, to deploy the JNA to Kosovo --
3 JUDGE ORIE: So you have identified them.
4 Could you tell me approximately what portion of the report that
5 presents? Again, is this 20 per cent; is this 50 per cent; is it
6 40 per cent; is it 80 per cent? Approximately.
7 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I assume -- again, I
8 don't want to go wrong. Let's say approximately 30 per cent of the
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, the same for the military report.
11 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters note that there is background
13 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if you will allow me,
14 the military report, if I may address you on that on Monday and give you
15 an estimate because -- so to give you an estimate of what is the portion
16 that we believe is not relevant for the case.
17 JUDGE ORIE: So apparently there is a portion which is not
18 relevance for the case.
19 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we received the
20 military report as a whole. There are elements in it related to the
21 historical chronology of the JNA. And for the sake of expeditiousness
22 and to allow adequate preparation to the Prosecution, we can check this
23 with the expert.
24 We are going to be editing his report so I suppose we have your
25 understanding for the fact that we will have to consult with him to see
1 and establish what are the portions that we can leave out.
2 We will be focussing on those elements that are not strictly
3 necessary for our case, and we will do so in consultation with the
4 expert, and we would kindly ask you to give us a time-limit within which
5 we would go through the exercise.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, what is relevant for the case is for
7 counsel to decide. What portions not to rely on, relevant or not, is for
8 counsel to decide. Now it sounds very pleasant to say "for the sake of
9 the expeditiousness and to allow adequate preparation to the
10 Prosecution," if you would have consulted and have made up your mind once
11 you received the military report, which was in July, you would saved this
12 Tribunal a huge amount of -- and money and time by selecting the relevant
13 portions you wish to rely on before you sent it to CLSS for translation.
14 So, on the basis of what you've told me now, it is a total
15 misapprehension to think that sending everything for translation would
16 either speed up or would accommodate the Prosecution. I'm inclined to
17 believe that the contrary is true; that it delayed, considerably, the
18 availability of an English version of the report.
19 Now, the Chamber has earlier expressed that it would be necessary
20 that you consult -- that you seriously consider to reduce the size of the
21 report. From what I see now, that no serious effort has been made in
22 that respect because the numbers here are still the same as they were
23 half a year ago. Of course the Chamber could give no guidance because it
24 had no access to the content of the report, apart from that it's not for
25 the Chamber to decide what you consider to be relevant for the case.
1 Finally, of course, we'll decide whether evidence is relevant or not, but
2 we are usually rather generous, expecting that the parties will seriously
3 take efforts not to flood the Chamber with irrelevant material. The
4 Chamber is not inclined very much to be the master of the case
5 presentation. To the contrary, it's in the hands of the parties, and the
6 Chamber expects the parties to responsibly perform their task.
7 Now, there is some background noise. I was -- I don't know where
8 it comes from. I'm not aware of doing anything wrong, but there seems to
9 be a ...
10 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, again, it seems that I
11 am to blame.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, I would approach it in a different way,
13 Mr. Bakrac. I would say at least this problem is resolved. That's the
14 positive approach.
15 Mr. Bakrac, do you know what you're risking at this moment?
16 You're risking that the Chamber will not admit, for procedural reasons,
17 the evidence you want to present. And looking at this history of this
18 problem where the expert was tasked in either 2006 or 2007, where you
19 have, from what I understand from your submissions at this moment, that
20 you have not seriously followed the guidance of the Chamber. That is,
21 see how we can reduce it, take care that everything is transparent.
22 You're taking high risks because there are limits to what a Chamber can
23 do, and you know what the case law is. And, of course, I first will have
24 to consider with my colleagues what the consequences are, but it should
25 have been clear to you already for well over a half a year that you
1 should do something, which apparently you haven't done.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: The Judges will have to consider the situation.
4 Meanwhile, even if one meeting might not resolve the problem,
5 certainly not in respect of the military report where there seems -- the
6 problems seem to be even greater than with the MUP report, that it might
7 be good to see to what extent a meeting can contribute to a solution such
8 as identify where there is an overlap with the Theunens reports and no
9 great dispute about the content - I do not know. I have not seen the
10 report. I have not read it, I should say - and to see whether we can get
11 the problem back to such dimensions that there is a reasonable chance
12 that the matter will be resolved, because the dimensions of the problem
13 at this moment seem to be such that unless something drastically is done
14 that it might be extremely difficult to come to an acceptable solution.
15 Mr. Weber, let me first --
16 Mr. Bakrac, not just a meeting on the MUP report but on the
17 military report as well. Tea or coffee, I leave that to you.
18 Mr. Weber.
19 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, with respect to the military report, the
20 scope of the problem is such that we aren't even in a position to really
21 dive in depth in terms of how to analyse this or even organise it
22 because we're completely lacking means of cross-referencing.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, if Mr. Bakrac, after having gone through
24 the -- the table of content of the report would come to you and would
25 say, Would it assist you in any way if I would drop this chapter, that
1 chapter, that chapter, that chapter? How could we continue to work on
2 chapter A and would it be agreeable to you that we start with chapter 7 A
3 and then deal with chapter 3, and could we make an offer within the next
4 week explaining to you where the overlap with the Theunens report is, why
6 MR. WEBER: Thank you for clarifying that. With respect to that
7 possibility, the Prosecution would like to reiterate that it considers
8 that as inappropriate for us to decide or participate in deciding what
9 the Defence considers that they need to rely upon in the submission of
10 its own case. And, as the Chamber stated, this is incumbent upon the
11 Defence to decide to do that. In my original submission, I also stated
12 that it is unclear to us, based on the notice that we received from the
13 Defence, what many of these portions may or may not be relevant to. So
14 it would be the Prosecution's position that it is the Defence's decision
15 alone to decide what they intend to rely upon and they are the ones best
16 positioned to do that.
17 The Prosecution does not seek to engage in a negotiation with
18 them over what may or may not be relevant to the case. I believe that
19 would be unproductive and also time-consuming with such a voluminous
20 report. Not to say that we wouldn't be willing to meet with them to
21 discuss many of the technical matters, table of contents, see how we can
22 better organise going through the report, we would be willing to do that,
23 and that could alleviate some ability for the parties to -- with whatever
24 is decided to then be submitted be able to more efficiently process the
25 report on that level.
1 The Prosecution would just note we've been discussing the
2 possibility of deadlines. We would request that firm deadlines be set
3 upon the Defence to make decisions with respect to both the MUP report
4 and the military report, as to what portions are going to be relied upon.
5 The Prosecution also would, with respect to the military report, again
6 reiterate that we have requested two specific forms of relief, and, one,
7 that being a stay of the Prosecution's 30-day response deadline and also
8 whether or not the Defence can file a submission based on what the
9 relevance is.
10 So we would again request that the Chamber consider that as part
11 of its deliberations.
12 Thank you.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What I heard over the last two and a half
14 minutes, Mr. Weber, is to say, Whatever the Chamber suggests would not be
15 appropriate, we couldn't do that, we couldn't negotiate that. I try
16 tried to give you some guidance on what such a meeting could mean. What
17 you say, Of course, we could meet but only on technicalities, apparently
18 not accepting the guidance and the suggestion of the Chamber. Because
19 what I suggested is that a meeting, not primarily focussing on only on
20 the technicalities, might assist in down sizing the problem in such a way
21 that perhaps in the near future that we could better tackle the problem.
22 Of course, you couldn't impose on the Defence what they should rely on
23 yes or no. But, of course, you can say, If you do not rely on that part
24 of the report then we would have a lesser problem. Of course, that --
25 relevance and relying on certain portions which something you could not
1 possibly discuss between the parties seems far too strong statement to
2 me. And what you then did is insist on getting a decision on what you
3 wanted. Of course, finally the Chamber will decide on any motion, but
4 the Chamber would appreciate if would you also first try to explore a bit
5 more in detail the possibilities that may lead to a solution.
6 At the same time, Mr. Bakrac, I think that the message I conveyed
7 to the Simatovic Defence has been strong enough.
8 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. And if I may be
9 allowed to add, I did have the intention of the Defence sitting down and
10 seeing what it is, at this stage of trial, that we can leave out of the
11 report and then perhaps see what it is that the Prosecution find
12 controversial and complete the exercise as soon as possible.
13 That was my suggestion.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think I earlier expressed that the path to
15 the place where we don't want to be is paved with good intentions. I
16 have heard a lot of good intentions in the context of the matter that
17 we're discussing at the moment, and I'm afraid that we are at a point
18 that good intentions are not sufficient anymore and that decisions will
19 have to be taken and it comes down to, now, decisive steps to be taken.
20 Anything else?
21 MR. WEBER: No, Your Honour. We will sit and meet with the
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bakrac, my suggestion to you would be to very
24 well consider your position at this moment. Not to meet within a half an
25 hour from now, but, first, make up your own mind, then met with the
1 Defence [sic], and the Chamber expects a very brief report ...
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: As always, the Chamber offers its good services as
4 well. The Chamber's team will go through all the submissions which were
5 made in relation to these reports over the last long period of time and
6 may offer its assistance in resolving matters, and that is done by
7 Chamber's staff, independently, and not on specific instructions from the
8 Chamber. Don't be afraid that the Chamber is intervening or interfering
9 with matters which are primarily in the hands of the parties. At the
10 same time, the Chamber cannot go on just to look and listen. And of
11 course, finally, the Chamber will decide the matter, if need be. But if
12 we could -- the Chamber is always anxious to achieve that both parties
13 will be able to present their cases in the best possible way but within
14 the limits of what is procedurally acceptable.
15 So if Chamber's staff would offer any assistance, it may be by
16 identifying what issues have been put on the record, whatever, not in any
17 way to attempt or even try to attempt to control what parties should
18 present. But since it is finally a decision of the Chamber whether or
19 not evidence can be admitted, yes or no, and in view of the -- what I
20 just expressed as the -- what is important for the Chamber, that is, that
21 within procedural limits, parties are able to optimally present their
22 cases, it is in this context that you should understand any communication
23 with Chamber's staff.
24 We are running out of the tape, I take it. If there is any other
25 urgent matter to be raised at this moment. If not, then we adjourn, but
1 not -- no. I'll communicate this matter in an informal communication
2 with the parties.
3 And we will adjourn until Tuesday, the -- no. Yes, 21st -- 21st
4 of February, quarter past 2.00 in the afternoon, in this same courtroom,
6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.38 p.m.,
7 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 21st day of
8 February, 2012, at 2.15 p.m.